The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

I first came across Craig in a debate he had with Sam Harris. I have since watched several of Craig's debates. With the help of Spiral, another member here, I found that Craig's moral argument is incomplete, at least as understood from his debates.

I borrowed Craig's Reasonable Faith from the library and read the relevant sections. This is the diagram I fashioned from the chapter.

The first 3 boxes are idle speculations.
1) "God exists" - what is god?
2) "if god does not exist, then..." - on what grounds?
3) "Objective moral exist..." - only in the minds of humans. This being so , then god only exists in the minds of men. We already know that.

^It is very odd that you end this way. It seems to imply a motive other than seeking truth. It feels like the way most people approach politics, rather than philosophy. If, heaven forbid , God exists, would you not want to learn the Truth? If you begin with the premise, or secret motive, that God could never exist, then why bother? This seems no better or worse than beginning with the premise that He is real, if you are both unwilling to see 'unpleasant' truth if it might be presented to you. It appears this way at a glance, but I don't know your motives.

I'm not finding much to argue for or against in the diagram, as it seems to be full of assumptions that defy proof or disproof. I agree with

"The origin of a belief does not influence the truth value of the belief".

The rest...who can say?

It does seem obvious that morals exist without the idea of God for many people. Most of them probably consider them to be objective goods or evils, rather than subjective. Their origins, presumably, are in an implied social contract that says we have duties to be fair to others if we wish to enjoy the benefits of society. But, their origins don't affect their 'truthiness'. If we made a Venn diagram of everyone's ideas of moral good, there would surely be a large area of overlap. The fact that there are gaps might imply that our views are subjective, or simply that some of us are incorrect or ignorant in some aspects, or that some morals are objective and some subjective.

So, I disagree with

"If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist",

and by extension, much of the rest. Assuming you've laid out his argument well, then I would choose Descartes ' if I were trying to 'prove' the existence of God. Neither convinces, but Descartes is at least a bit compelling.

It's a nice flow-chart, going from nothing to nowhere, containing lots of opinions and subjective value judgments. (Morally handicapped??)
If you started from observable and verifiable phenomena and built upward, you might have an edifice.
If you start in midair and build down, you have a hot-air balloon.

It's a nice flow-chart, going from nothing to nowhere, containing lots of opinions and subjective value judgments. (Morally handicapped??)
If you started from observable and verifiable phenomena and built upward, you might have an edifice.
If you start in midair and build down, you have a hot-air balloon.

Please direct your attacks towards specific propositions seen on the chart (preferibly referencing the numbers given). Also please dig a little deeper than simply saying that something is a value judgment. I'm not sure it is possible to avoid value judgments when discussing morality.

[quote=mattfara50 post_id=310837 time=1525907624 user_id=48268]
I first came across Craig in a debate he had with Sam Harris. I have since watched several of Craig's debates. With the help of Spiral, another member here, I found that Craig's moral argument is incomplete, at least as understood from his debates.